So does it seem that Civ3 players love Civ5 and Civ4 players hate it?

[SG-17]

Maybe it is just me but I've been noticing that players who loved Civ3 and disliked Civ4 also end up loving Civ5.

[Civ_43]

I'm the same way. I love Civ 3 and I don't hate it but it is a comparable game and I love Civ 5. At least I am that way.

[SilentWatcher]

I loved civ 3.. Played it till I owned emperor level. when I beat it on deity I put it down and found civ 4. Still love it 4 years or whatever on. Cant miss my BOTM! after 4 years I still havnt mastered it tho.. and thats good. bought civ 5 a month ago and due to steam/slow Internet etc only got it running today, not been grabbed yet, The jury is out.. Is there gonna be a monthly game for civ 5 as there is in 4? whats stopping that?

[Jimbo30]

Civ 3 and 4 are both fantastic games, as were 1 and 2 at the time. 5 is a pale shadow of their greatness but hopefully a lot will be fixed in the expansion.

[l4d2bob]

I have civ 3-5 and I personally like Civ 5 the most. Civ 3 was really confusing, Civ 4 was a lot more new-player friendly and Civ 5 is the most user-friendly.

[hix]

Originally Posted by SilentWatcher

Is there gonna be a monthly game for civ 5 as there is in 4? whats stopping that?

There can't be an anti-cheating mod at the current time. This is keeping it from being a serious competition.

[notadummy]

Originally Posted by SilentWatcher

Is there gonna be a monthly game for civ 5 as there is in 4? whats stopping that?

There already is. check out the subforum http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=411

[gopher666]

I was a big fan of IV and V. I hear a lot of people griping about the last edition, but I personally find it to be comparatively brilliant. The changes made to combat alone makes Civ V stand out to me. Sure, the AI is a bit awful, but the Civ AI never was very good.

[spider1]

I've spent many hours playing all the versions of Civ, and enjoyed them all.

[durian]

I have to admit that even though I liked all three, Civ 3 and Civ 5 were the ones that I ended up playing the most. There should be a poll for this topic!

[KillingMeSoftly]

I didn't like Civ3 at all, but loved Civ2. I think Civ5 is great, though.

[PawelS]

For me it's simple: 5>4>3>2>1

[The_Quasar]

Originally Posted by PawelS

For me it's simple: 5>4>3>2>1

That's exactly how I see it...

[janboruta]

I couldn't really get into Civ3. Maybe it was because of the interface or that I had a feeling that I'm playing a game that is a bit too abstract and fantasy, and not a game based on history (but that way I couldn't play more and get another feeling, so the cycle was closed).

I absolutely loved Civ 4, though I was only playing on Prince level. I was really fond of the wonder videos, joyful leaderheads and great choice of music (some leader music themes are my favourites to this day). However, I wasn't playing since release but got it already with Warlords and BtS. I liked random events and the sheer number of techs and buildings allowed so many choices - it was certainly lacking in first versions of Civ 5. Patches with Aqueduct, Stone and Stone Works and all DLC's spiced Civ 5 up on the flavour side, a bit. With GaK it's going to be an even better game. I think that Civ 4 and 5 share a lot in common, though they are different games. Both are great and I hope to revisit Civ 4 some time in the future.

[muccimaaan]

Ive loved each version for their own merits. I loved 2 because it was the first thing i ever modded and loved doing that. I loved 3 because it introduced the revolutionary concept of resources. IV, loved the religion and corporation concepts and loved the upgrade in the graphics. V, again, love the new additions... the only thing I still have trouble with is the inability to have multiple units in one grid space

[cain3456]

I think it's 1UPT that the Civ3 fans like. The older games allowed blocking, while civ4 allowed different nations on the same tile, so if you had open borders, they could go anywhere they wanted.

I do not miss culture flipping, tho.

[Quintillus]

I fit the demographic of someone who "loves Civ3 and [at least before BTS] disliked Civ4". I don't know if I'll end up loving Civ5, but having actually tried it now, I think it's a better game in the vanilla version than Civ4 was. Of course, it probably helps than I'm not trying to run it on a mid-range Pentium 4, so it doesn't run super-slowly, but I think it's probably better overall. It might also help that expectations were reset after Civ4.

I think part of what I disliked about Civ4 was that it was a smaller scale, and some of the combat options (such as artillery) weren't as good. Civ5 is still on a smaller scale, but the way artillery works makes sense. I think it's also clearer that Civ5 isn't trying to be quite the same game as Civ3.

There's also, IMO, better new concepts in Civ5 compared to vanilla Civ4. Civ4 introduced religion, which could be OK, but made diplomacy a pain. And Civics, which I don't think were a big step up over Civ3's governments in practice. Whereas Civ5's policies seem to actually matter in terms of the direction of the game. City states are an interesting new dynamic, although perhaps a bit too much of a gold sink. The hex grid seems to actually work fairly well, and I'd say was a better swap than isometric for square in Civ4. The happiness concept still doesn't really make sense realistically, but that both serves to make the game distinct from Civ3, and it does a good job of making happiness important. And, I kind of like the expansion concept of expanding tile-by-tile rather than in whole levels. It makes the growth feel more organic.

In terms of doing what Civ3 does better than Civ3, I don't think Civ5 can do it (at least without major mods to happiness, 1 UPT, and map size, and perhaps a few others). But unlike Civ4, it doesn't seem like that's the obvious goal.

I disagree that 1 UPT is appealing to Civ3 fans, though. Unless possibly as an alternative. True, it does allow blocking, but Civ3 is the king of stacks of doom.

[karadoc]

I thought Civ3 was fine, but I reckon the core game mechanics in Civ4 are superior to those in Civ5 - which is why I've put so much time and effort into improving Civ4 rather than Civ5. (For me, Civ4 is K-Mod. Without K-Mod, Civ4 is not better than Civ5.)

Civ3 would be a good starting point for a game, but as far as I know the tools are not available to improve it as much as Civ4 can be improved.

[King Kalmah]

Originally Posted by karadoc

I thought Civ3 was fine, but I reckon the core game mechanics in Civ4 are superior to those in Civ5

I loved that about Civ 4 was the ability to customize alot of cool things into the game.

Your nation/Civ isn't in it..mod it in...

Want a new resource? mod it in...

events/quests...mod them in...lol

I loved CIV3,but the reason I stick to CIV4 is that when the core game gets old you can always find a cool mod or scenario to download...

CIV4 is a beast...lol

Civ 5 is still to new....for me to make up my mind...

but I agree with the logic that if you liked CIV3 you might like CIV5...

[Greasy Dave]

I definitely fall into the thread titles categorisation. Loved Civ 3. Disliked Civ 4 BTS. Love Civ V.

I have a feeling that I might end up going back to vanilla V after testing G and K.

I prefer complexity from simplicity rather than complexity for the sake of complexity. There's something more aesthetically pleasing to me about the former.

If G and K implements the new features in a simple and minimalistic manner - then I might just blow a gasket. If it implements them as complexity add-ons to counter the complaints that V is dumbed down and BTS was more complex - then I'll probably be uninstalling it.

Hard to say until I play.